Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Hello Hqb, as you are aware I am the editor who changed the dates at Space Shuttle Challenger disaster to DMY. There was one prior objection that was withdrawn with a simple explanation. Simply, I did this for consistency across all spaceflight related articles. Currently, all space shuttle related articles (minus at least 1), and all ISS related articles use DMY. Also there is a large number of astronaut bio's that use DMY format. I am just aiming for some consistency across the project.--NavyBlue84 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. Could you point me at the relevant project guideline or discussion page where consensus on this practice was reached? Though I'm obviously not a regular editor of spaceflight-related articles, I find it somewhat problematic to violate long-standing and generally accepted MOS guidelines without a clear need. And especially for almost purely American missions like the Space Shuttle, it seems odd to standardize on a predominantly British date format, when – as far as I can tell – even NASA consistently uses MDY order on their own pages. If there is no clearly documented consensus to ultimately convert all spaceflight articles to DMY format, it seems particularly inappropriate to do so in a script/bot-assisted way, as I've seen on some of the other STS pages, such as this edit. Hqb (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no guideline or discussion on the subject. I made a few changes and since there was no objections, I continued. If you read the second bullet, there is a lot of military involvement (astro's and payloads). I think you will find very little objection to it, but if you want, it can be brought up at the portal and let others decide. As for others using bots/scripts, you would have to ask them why they chose that method. Also, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is to be bold, which is what I was doing.--NavyBlue84 17:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the second bullet, which is why I pointed out that no such general convention seems to apply within NASA, even if some STS missions (a definite minority) did have substantial military involvement. Also, while I would have no particular opinion about WP:WikiProject Spaceflight potentially standardizing on DMY dates for mission articles and the like, I strongly object to adopting DMY dates in biographical articles about individual American astronauts, such as Janice E. Voss (as you seem to advocate). Not even bio articles about US military personnel do that. Also, trying to maintain "consistency" across bio articles, based on whether the subject is/was an astronaut or not, is doomed to fail. Does Judith Resnik qualify for DMY order? Christa McAuliffe? John Glenn? Dennis Tito? Hqb (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, bio's I will leave MDY. Although for Glenn, he was millitary so that should make him qualify. The others, I am not sure what would be good. But since there is an objection I will stand down on DMY on bio's.--NavyBlue84 20:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed how you edited the references section for the dille-kopanyi reagent and was wondering if your format is standard? I got mine from this reference generator - perhaps the tool should be adjusted? Testem (talk) 16:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean using {{reflist}} instead of <div class='references-small'> <references/> </div>? Yes, I believe that's been the recommended standard for a while. Hqb (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for correction of the article name, if you are positive about it :) My source (quoted in the article) said "Sievert's law", as you can perhaps check in google books. Now I additionally checked some other books and the usage seem to be divided between Sievert's Sieverts' Sieverts and Sieverts's (in this order of frequency), so most likely you are right :) Good catch! Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stan J. Klimas (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit disturbing how often otherwise reliable sources will blindly propagate a spelling error. Of course, I cannot be certain, but given the undeniable existence of Adolf Sieverts, it seems extremely unlikely that there was also a "Sievert" out there, working on the same topic. Hqb (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No fear its awaiting proof reading, I do this regularly/♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure; just didn't like to leave the article in such a sorry state without at least a maintenance template. Feel free to remove the request for cleanup assistance if you plan to do this yourself in the near future. Hqb (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'd leave him in for now; according to IMDb, his career seems to have revived in 2013, so he might actually cross the notability threshold soon, especially with the press he's getting for GTA V. Love WP:MMORPG :). Hqb (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I really did a copy paste but when I did a search on wikipedia about balwantrao I did not got anything . Can we take permission from the blogger and add his blog in the references or external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr0044gd (talk • contribs) 07:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Having to scroll through filmographies is annoying and having them on a seperate article is prefered by all users. Also there was no research needed just using IMDB shows an entire filmography. I did not copy someone elses work.Makro (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, really, "preferred by all users"? That must be why almost all filmographies (except for truly massive ones, such as John Wayne's) are currently in the actors' main articles. I for one certainly prefer to just scroll down to the filmography section for a quick check, rather than first scroll down to the section, discover that there's only a link there, click through to a separate article, and scroll further down on that one. Also, note that WP:SIZESPLIT specifically says that articles less than 40 kB should normally not be split for size reasons.

Second, what do you mean that you did not copy someone else's work but used IMDB? For example, the Filmography of Robert Picardo that you "created" is clearly a cut-and-paste of Robert Picardo#Filmography, rather than something that you put together yourself from scratch (which would be kind of pointless anyway, when the work has already been done).

If there's a specific actor biography where you believe that the filmography section is so large that it really would be better to split it off into a separate article (preferably with a proper overview and commentary, again like the John Wayne filmography, or Audie Murphy filmography – not just a free-floating table or two), feel free to mark it with a {{split-section}} template and make your case on the article's Talk page. If you think that in general filmographies should be in separate pages to a far greater extent than currently (for example, anything with more than some fixed number of entries), you're welcome to propose it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and see what consensus develops. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It's an IBM term. I don't know whether something similar was available from others under another name. I think it predates the 360. Given all that, I think your categorization is correct unless new info is introduced. Peter Flass (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think anyone else used the term "channels" in the IBM sense (unless they were actually aiming to be compatible); but something roughly analogous to CTCAs could well exist for other architectures, in which case a more inclusive article would probably be in order. Hqb (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw an [edit of yours from long ago (2009), in which you removed the subfamily and tribe from Gardena insignis, citing WP:TX which currently redirects to the Taxobox template. There it currently says add minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Now, where the tribes and subfamilies are in flux as at present is true in the armored scale insects, or where a genus or even a species is alone in a tribe or subfamily, I would agree that putting the tribe or subfamily in the taxobox would not add much, but where the structure is developed such as in the case of the Emesinii, putting the link in to the tribe provides a great deal of information about related genera. Perhaps the standard was different in 2009 or perhaps the Emesinii article was not as developed at that time, but as it stands at present, I think the tribe should remain in the Gardena insignis taxobox.

Just a note about listing suborders in the taxoboxes of hemiptera. It has more importance since the demise of the Homoptera and the consequent restructuring, also the stubs are indexed at the suborder level in the hemiptera. In many ways in terms of understanding current classification, the order in those taxoboxes is less important than the suborder. --Bejnar (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the intent of the WP:TX#Classification guidelines is (and has always been) that minor ranks except up to the next major one should normally be avoided in taxoboxes, to avoid clutter. That is, for a species article like G. insignis, it would certainly have been appropriate to include a subgenus (had there been one); but the placement of Gardena in Emesinae should usually only be mentioned once in the genus taxobox, but not repeated for every Gardena species. Of course, had the G. insignis article explicitly talked about the subfamily or tribe, such as "G. insignis is among the (largest/smallest/...) species in Emesinae", or "Like all Emesinii, G. insignis has ...", it would be very appropriate to include those in the taxobox.

Likewise, if the most specific stub category for a taxon happens to be a minor rank, such as Category:Heteroptera stubs, that would also be a good reason to mention the suborder even in a species taxobox -- if the article is in fact a stub.

All that being said, my main reason for the edit in question (as I remember it), was simply that the article looked like it was bot-created, and the original author had not necessarily even made a conscious choice of what ranks to include in the taxobox, but simply copied the parent taxobox verbatim as a starting point. If a knowledgable editor (let alone an actual entomologist) believes that for G. insignis (and presumably the other Gardena species as well), including the subfamily and/or tribe in the species taxobox makes good taxonomical sense, even if it goes against the general/default guidelines, I'm certainly not inclined to argue. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rod (unit), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Burke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hi, my friennd!In Tht article for a long time had in its plot very interesting part about dubbing of This cartoon. I am not the author of This part and i am not knouing the sources, that author used when he created this part. But this part looked very realistic and everytime got a new details. In one moment This part was deleted. I am sure, that this part based on realy information. May be, we have a posibility to ask the author of the part "Dubbing" about sources. I haven't so high lelel as Wikipedia user to do it. I am very unhappy in this situation. May be you know, how to do it. Thank you. Best regards!--Vasilchikov v.v. (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please take a close look at Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Even if the dubbing information were actually true, we still wouldn't be able to include it without a source. Feel free to look through the page history of the article to see who contributed the entries to the table, and leave messages on their talk pages asking them to provide proper references. However, I must say that large parts of the table look quite unrealistic. Just for the UK version, do you have any idea how much it would cost to hire all of Robbie Williams, Tom Jones, Beyonce, Hugh Laurie, Hugh Grant, and Ewan McGregor for a dubbing session? If the film had a wide enough release to justify the cost of employing such big-name actors/musicians, why isn't there any trace of their involvement in the Internet Movie Database or elsewhere?

Or, for the Swedish dub, Robin Stjernberg (who supposedly voiced Alice) would have been 7 years old in 1998 when the film was released, and he hasn't done any other voice acting work before or since, so why would the producers go for a completely unknown kid for the lead role, when they also got Dolph Lundgren as Seleznev? It's theoretically possible that some of the names in the table are correct, but they are mixed in with so much garbage that we cannot trust any of them until someone provides a reliable source. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

hello, I created the page and I gave the reference for each section. The subject is not about advertising, its offcource about real person, but is notable. If you see his contributions, you will find it notable. I'm giving reliable sources, please remove deletion tag from page. Thanks Miller Henry (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

These are not minor journals, these are Thomas ISI indexed Journals and peer reviewed best Journals in which his theories has been published. I'm also providing other notable sources that meets Wikipedia guidelines sufficiently, I do agree with you, but if you place some other tag on page, I should keep on improving the article.Miller Henry (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC) He is researcher, attended many conferences and is famous about his theory on Einstein. Can you please place another tag so that I can improve the article before it goes to deletion? Miller Henry (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to develop the article aa a userspace draft, then copy it to the main article space once you have properly established notability of the subject. Hqb (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks i will do so, but Can you please remove deletion tag from the page? Since I have provided some more information there. Can you please tag it an other way so that other editors also make improvements before it is deleted ? Miller Henry (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello there. I have removed speedy deletion tag from Asif Ali Laghari, the information provided in the article is some how sufficient to identify the notability. I have tagged it for more reliable sources. Have a good time ! Nechlison (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that there was difference between "Typo", "Not a typo" and "As written". I reverted 50 edits by myself after your edits. Please feel free to fix any further mistakes I may have done. Thanks again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the vast majority of your edits were correct; I only noticed two instances (the ones I reverted) that clearly merited the use of {{typo}}. Most others should indeed be using {{not a typo}} (or {{proper name}}), at least according to current guidelines. Hqb (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eremias lalezharica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lalehzar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

No problem. On second thought, I just reduced the precision to 9 significant digits (since the original figure wasn't exact anyway). This is already more than enough for a surveying unit, and still clearly shows the difference to the other two definitions. Hqb (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Hqb, I grant you your point in the article edits, and won't insist. True, the link is archaic. But (I think) it's not yet entirely eliminated from practical application in U.S. surveying, and most calculating devices these days operate with that kind of precision. Still, perhaps even the more backward states have moved further toward metrification than I am aware. Evensteven (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)